Petrocelli wrote:I have been using MacAfee, but it is getting a little pricey.

Thanks in advance.

You just have to look for the deals. I just had Webroot expire on one of my computers and they wanted $79.99 to renew. However, a few days later, Best Buy had it as one of their "Buys of the Day" for $9.99. I think you can almost always find a good anti-virus program for $39.99 or less and that often covers up to 3 computers.

I've been using MSE for the past couple of years. The price is right (zero) and it's caught and cleaned a few "infections" with ease. It's also pretty unobstrusive. I used McAfee back in the day and it was annoying in some ways.

I'm happy to hear that there is a good and free anti-virus choice for PC users. One of the main things I hated about using a PC is that the anti-virus program didn't play nicely with the other stuff on the computer. Half the time I had a problem, it was some kind of incompatibility involving Norton or McAfee or whatever. Additionally, whatever I used had to be replaced from the ground up every 2 or 3 years. Just a royal pain in the you know what. It seems things have gotten better in PC land since I left.

Based on the comments here, I'll recommend MSE to a friend who is in need of it. Especially the free part.

+1 on security essentials for being free, very decent and non-annoying (unlike norton and mcafee) but remember to run the "full scan" occasionally - it defaults to quick scan which leaves behind some threats that full scan can eliminate.

scrabbler1 wrote:Don't forget about anti-spyware programs such as Spybot S&D as well as the free version of Malwarebytes, both of which I have used to save my friend's PC several times.

I would not go near Spybot. It was a good choice a dozen years ago. Now, it is probably at or near the bottom of the list. Malwarebytes, on the other hand, is a very good choice. And, as one person mentioned, there's no reason you couldn't run MSE for real-time protection, and keep Malwarebytes around to run regular scans.

Last year my computer got several Trojans and McAfee did not do anything about it. A local computer geek cleaned up my software and advised against McAfee, suggested to keep Webroot and installed the free avast! and Malwarebytes. I have no problems since then and run them automatically and occasionally manually.

I've been using Microsoft Security Essentials for about the past year now based on the many comments made on this forum. I have been quite happy with it. It was a welcome change from commercial software such as Norton which appeared to require many more system resources to run. Webslinger

For Windows users, I always recommend the free Microsoft Security Essentials and make sure it is updated regularly. It does a very good job and is not a resource hog as some of the other paid Antiviruses. On top of that, you can also get the free version of MalwareBytes and run scans occasionally. The free version does not give you runtime protection but still a very good tool. What I also suggest users is to create a non-administrator login and use the administrator login to just install and update software.

Unless you have some unusual security requirements, MSSE is the way to go.

+ another 1. Based on these comments, I kicked McAfee to the curb this afternoon and installed MSE. The increase in performance without McAfee is noticeable. Thanks for the tip...I was under the impression from years ago the MicroSquish security stuff sucked.

My new laptop came with Norton installed and I've read that it's difficult to really uninstall. Any suggestions for a non-geek to clean this out of my system before activating Microsoft Defender (Windows 8 version of MSE)?

Microsoft Security Essentials is free, which is great, but its protection has been getting slammed in antivirus tests in the last few months. The vast majority of antivirus products manage to pass certification with AV-Test; not Microsoft. In November and again in January Microsoft failed certification. The Microsoft product team issued a rebuttal basically stating that the test in question didn't measure their actual real-world protection. However, a new test just released by London-based Dennis Technology Labs puts Microsoft in last place, way behind all of its competition. ...

The Dennis Labs accuracy test aims to measure a product's ability to "block all threats and allow all legitimate applications." Products gain points both for correctly blocking threats and for correctly leaving legitimate software alone; they also lose points for blocking legitimate software and for failing to identify malware. The best possible score is 400 points; the worst, -1000 points. With 388.5 points Norton Internet Security (2013) came close to the maximum. All the rest earned at least 300 points, except Microsoft, which took a paltry 30 points. ...

As for the heavy penalties, those kick in when the malware totally gets past all defenses, or if the system is damaged after the security product's response. Every such failure reduces the overall score by five points. With 100 samples tested, the best possible score is 300, the worst, -500.

Norton topped this list too, with 289 points, and all the rest earned at least 200 point. All but Microsoft, that is. In a rare sub-zero score, Microsoft took -70 points.

I bought a new computer a couple of months ago that came with 60 days of Norton anti-virus software. A few days before the Norton software expired I switched to Microsoft Security Essentials based on recommendations here:

The Dennis Labs accuracy test aims to measure a product's ability to "block all threats and allow all legitimate applications." Products gain points both for correctly blocking threats and for correctly leaving legitimate software alone; they also lose points for blocking legitimate software and for failing to identify malware. The best possible score is 400 points; the worst, -1000 points. With 388.5 points Norton Internet Security (2013) came close to the maximum. All the rest earned at least 300 points, except Microsoft, which took a paltry 30 points. ...

As for the heavy penalties, those kick in when the malware totally gets past all defenses, or if the system is damaged after the security product's response. Every such failure reduces the overall score by five points. With 100 samples tested, the best possible score is 300, the worst, -500.

Norton topped this list too, with 289 points, and all the rest earned at least 200 point. All but Microsoft, that is. In a rare sub-zero score, Microsoft took -70 points. ...

Simon Edwards, Technical Director of Dennis Technology Labs, observed "It’s interesting to see how badly Microsoft does in the consumer and enterprise tests, particularly when noting that its products also fared poorly in the last AV-Test report. As you no doubt know Microsoft was dismissive of that test but my view is that if lots of different tests, from competing test houses that use different methodologies/approaches, reach similar conclusions then those conclusions start to be appear increasingly convincing."

BobK

In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | | | | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.

I used MSE for about 2 years until last month when my Windwos 7 computer got infected by a stubborn trojan named "Alureon.A" - which MSE detected but could not remove. It advised I downlod Windows Defender, create a bootable CD with it, and boot from that CD. It didn't remove the trojan either. I kept getting the blue screen of death.

I then installed Avast free, it detected and claimed to have moved the virus to its "virus chest". The blue screen problem disappeared.

The only security tests that MS-SE seems to consistently "tank" is AV-Test. Whether this is an issue with MS-SE or with AV-Test is an exercise left to the reader.

In a new test just released by London-based Dennis Technology Labs puts Microsoft in last place, way behind all of its competition. ...from Security Watch by Neil Rubenking

Instead of quoting from media writers, you should investigate the places that are publishing these tests. Dennis Tech Labs has previously been sponsored by none other than Symantec. And just look who came in first....

And before you respond that the test was "unsponsored", buried in the report is this line “Partner vendors contribute financially to the test in return for a preview of the results, an opportunity to challenge results before publication and the right to use award logos in marketing material.”

I'm far from a Microsoft fan-girl, but I know when to follow the money when it comes to these "independent" security tests, particularly when a program that is poorly regarded in the community ends up with top ranking.

Sunny Sarkar wrote:I used MSE for about 2 years until last month when my Windwos 7 computer got infected by a stubborn trojan named "Alureon.A" - which MSE detected but could not remove. It advised I downlod Windows Defender, create a bootable CD with it, and boot from that CD. It didn't remove the trojan either. I kept getting the blue screen of death.

I then installed Avast free, it detected and claimed to have moved the virus to its "virus chest". The blue screen problem disappeared.

Once you have malware of that level (keylogger and rootkit), it is best to reinstall, not play anti-virus roulette. This particular malware also alters the MBR to call a bootstrap routine for the malware while booting the OS, so you need to make sure to reinstall AND clean the MBR during the reinstall process.